Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 07/26/04 8:46 am:
"Our struggle is not about land or water. It is about bringing, by force if necessary, the whole of mankind onto the right path." Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini
this is not just a war against OBL ,but a war against the entire Islamo-Nazi movement.OBL is but one of the targets .Saddam was another .
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/26/04 8:52 am:
Hello Tom:
I don't disagree, well only that you (and the rest) take me too literally.
OBL is a figurehead, now. He's reached mythical proportions. Had we gotten him (after the Cole - after the 1st World Trade Center attack), I doubt his myth would have spawned the devastation it has.
And, getting him now won't end it. We lost our shot.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/26/04 11:23 am:
Hello All:
Why do some of you think blaming Clinton excuses Bush? Clinton wasn't paying attention, but he's not running the show now. The incompetent boob we've got now is running the show.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/26/04 11:40 am:
Ex,
Why do you think we're excusing Bush by pointing out Clinton missed a golden opportunity to get UBL? Nobody is excusing anyone here, but the 'incompetent boob' as you call him has something Clinton and Kerry don't have, resolve. One can't take whatever side sounds good to your audience at the time, you have to take a stand.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 07/26/04 12:28 pm:
Excon,
>>>I don't agree with you, so I guess that means that I don't understand. Yeah, right. Read what I said to Tom.<<<
The fact that you disagree with me is not what makes it clear that you don't understand the nature of the enemy. The fact that you said that our ultimate goal is (or should be) OBL is what makes it clear that you don't understand the nature of the enemy.
In fact, you made it clear again when you posted to Tom as follows:
>>>Had we gotten him (after the Cole - after the 1st World Trade Center attack), I doubt his myth would have spawned the devastation it has. <<<
This sentence itself makes several assumptions:
1) Without OBL, there would be no terrorism.
2) OBL is the only one making decisions for the terrorist leaders, and without him there's nobody left to lead them.
3) That the death of a single terrorist leader can somehow change the geopolitical spectrum throughout the world in such a way that the terrorists would have become intimidated by it and closed up shop, or that the USA would somehow no longer be a target.
None of these assumptions are true. What's been going on in Israel since 2000 should show you that the elimination of any single terrorist leader, no matter how 'mythical' or popular he is will not deter terrorism. Terrorists are networked together in such a way that the elimination of 1 or 2 or 1000 of them doesn't stop the rest of them. They are not intimidated by the elimination of one of their leaders... there's always another to take his place. It is an effective method of TEMPORARILY skewing their plans. But in order to destroy terrorism, you must root it out to the last man, and you must cut off its support system.
The fact that you can post your original message and your follow-up message to Tom is what makes it clear that you don't understand the enemey, not simply the fact that you and I disagree. It is YOUR words that make that lack of understanding so clear, not mine.
Though it is true that if you DID understand the nature of the enemy, you most likely WOULD agree with me and TOM and the others.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/26/04 2:02 pm:
Ex,
In reading more of your comments, I have to say damned if we do and damned if we don't. You doubt Kerry would have done better...but he's the "only alternative." Do you think Kerry would ever come even remotely close to taking your position, that "If we acted more like the Israelis and killed the terrorists where ever we found them and NEVER, NEVER appease them?"
You seem to be a real contradiction on this ex, there is only one candidate that would come remotely close to your views, and it's not Kerry. Of course Kerry's position could change tomorrow, and the next day, and the next...
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/27/04 9:55 am:
Hello Steve:
You’re right, you have no idea where I’m coming from. From the outset, you assumed that I’m a liberal, left leaning, anti-war pussy. Wrong! Beep! Buzz! Because I don’t like Bush, you assumed that I like the other guy. Wrong! Beep! Buzz! Because I don't support the war in Iraq, you assume that I don't support The War on Terror. Wrong! Beep! Buzz! Because I point out that our next president will be either Kerry or Bush, you assume that I support one of them. Wrong! Beep! Buzz! Because I don’t support either of them, I assume that you’ll assume that I support somebody. Wrong! Beep! Buzz!
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/27/04 10:14 am:
Ex,
No, no, no, Wrong! Beep! Buzz! ...it is a tremendous mistake to make assumptions about me, too.
* "From the outset, you assumed that I’m a liberal, left leaning, anti-war pussy"
That couldn't be further from the truth ex, I simply made an observation based on your comment that Kerry is "the ONLY alternative to Bush, and Bush has failed."
If you believe Bush has failed and Kerry is the only alternative, one can only conclude you don't support the one you believe has failed...and the only alternative doesn't espouse your view of the war on terror, and that's a little contradictory. The one who's 'failed' comes much closer to your views.
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/27/04 11:19 am:
Steve:
And, there we differ.
I've been paying a lot of attention to Kerry and, you're absolutely right, he sounds like a guy trying to win an election. I don't like what he say's, but I take into consideration the context in which he is saying it.
We ARE in the middle of a war, whether we should have gotten involved or not. Given the quagmire that Bush caused, Kerry must tread lightly.
I don't like treading lightly. I, frankly, think Bush treaded lightly, and failed. I don't know if Kerry would have done the same thing if he were in Bushes' shoes.
But, what I do know is this. And, you're talking to a guy who fought side by side with Kerry and left some his body there as well. Back then, Kerry could have avoided the fight, like others did. He didn't! George Bush did.
That tells me a lot about the character (and views) of these men.
Hopefully, Kerry is a guy who talks softly while carrying a big stick. Bush is a guy who talks loudly and carries no stick. He let Osama and the Taliban dude get away. Tell me that Bush used the stick at hand. He did not. That was a mistake bigger than you realize.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 07/27/04 11:42 am:
or as LBJ once said ;When you have them by the balls, the hearts and minds generally follow.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/27/04 12:08 pm:
Ex,
Yeah well, and Kerry thinks he has to get permission from France to use the stick.
Both have questions about their Vietnam era days, how is it even relevant to today? I use to smoke a lot of weed, drink a lot of beer and do a lot of drugs, should that disqualify me me from standing on the platform at church and leading the congregation in worship?
All we have is right now. Who is Bush right now and who is Kerry right now? We have a president that took us into two countries and in short order had them both under submission. We have Kerry who voted for going but voted against funding for the troops...while echoing algore's false "bake sales for body armor" charges. We have a former president who stands up last night and tells us the Democrats won't act "unilaterally" any more, even though more than 30 nations joined the battle. These guys aren't living in reality...or the only reality they know is the one they invent, and that scares the heck out of me.
Bush is the only one that has demonstrated an unwavering resolve to defend America. We may never know where Kerry really stands.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/27/04 12:42 pm:
Hell, Its:
I still smoke a lot of weed. Guess I'm disqualified.
excon
